(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the
Secretary of Homeland Security on land under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve
operational control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act
of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)) over the
international land and maritime borders of the United States.
(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal
Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities
that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and
construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up
monitoring equipment).
(c) Clarification Relating to Waiver Authority.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any termination date relating to the waiver referred
to in this subsection), the waiver by...

Sentiment Map

Nation

0Supporting

0Opposing

0%0%

State: CA

0Supporting

0Opposing

0%0%

District: 1st

0Supporting

0Opposing

0%0%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

Gene Wood, a Founding Member of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), recommended the implementation of H.R. 1505 to “achieve the goal of operational control.” He stated, “the difficulties encountered by the Border Patrol to gain operational control are not the result of poor management or lack of resources. It is simply an issue of denied access. … The time proven and effective techniques gained through years of experience are severely limited, or at times completely eliminated because of these self-imposed restrictions. Expensive technologies cannot be efficiently implemented, and manpower assets become more difficult to utilize successfully. It is for these reasons that the leadership of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers enthusiastically endorses the decisive remedies proposed by Congressman Bishop.”
http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=237265

Organizations Opposing

Dear Representative,
The House is poised to consider the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act”, which includes the title, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to that provision and to the entire bill. “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and its backers are pushing a new over-reaching and extreme effort to create a 100 mile zone on the Mexican and Canadian borders that would sacrifice the rights of Americans to use their land and flout the environmental laws that protect it, all to advance an anti-immigrant, anti-privacy and anti regulatory agenda.
Proponents of the bill are taking the extraordinary step of handing over a 100 mile “operational control zone,” home to millions of Americans, to the federal government, saying that dozens of environmental, safety and religious freedom laws no longer apply. And it would do nothing to advance a comprehensive solution to America’s immigration challenges while authorizing new surveillance of ordinary Americans.
"Security and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We need both,” said Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) about the bill. “Having served as an agent and Sector Chief of the U.S. Border Protection for 26 1/2 years prior to coming to Congress, I understand the challenges and realities of securing the border. We have a responsibility to make sure security policies encourage cooperation and dialogue and should hold the line against politically motivated efforts to weaken environmental protections under the guise of enhancing security."
Echoing that sentiment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an official statement opposing ”The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said, “It is unnecessary, and a bad policy.” Yet supporters of this provision continue to push the bill to satisfy the most extreme anti-immigrant and anti-environment factions of the population.
Latino and immigration reform groups recognize this attack as an exploitation of anti- immigration sentiments to further erode the environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans on the northern and southern borders. Native American Tribes view the bill as a direct and profound threat to tribal sovereignty, including protection of sacred places and cultural artifacts. Ranchers, business owners, hunters and conservation groups don’t want the bill, and environmentalists see the bill as an overwhelming threat to air, water, and wildlife.
We must respect the liberty of Americans to access our land and protect their right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and to preserve our special places and wildlife for future generations. This bill represents none of those values. For those reasons, we ask that you support the Grijalva amendment to strike “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and oppose final passage of the bill.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Group-OppositionLetter-HR1505.pdf

Dear Representative,
The House is poised to consider the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act”, which includes the title, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to that provision and to the entire bill. “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and its backers are pushing a new over-reaching and extreme effort to create a 100 mile zone on the Mexican and Canadian borders that would sacrifice the rights of Americans to use their land and flout the environmental laws that protect it, all to advance an anti-immigrant, anti-privacy and anti regulatory agenda.
Proponents of the bill are taking the extraordinary step of handing over a 100 mile “operational control zone,” home to millions of Americans, to the federal government, saying that dozens of environmental, safety and religious freedom laws no longer apply. And it would do nothing to advance a comprehensive solution to America’s immigration challenges while authorizing new surveillance of ordinary Americans.
"Security and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We need both,” said Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) about the bill. “Having served as an agent and Sector Chief of the U.S. Border Protection for 26 1/2 years prior to coming to Congress, I understand the challenges and realities of securing the border. We have a responsibility to make sure security policies encourage cooperation and dialogue and should hold the line against politically motivated efforts to weaken environmental protections under the guise of enhancing security."
Echoing that sentiment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an official statement opposing ”The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said, “It is unnecessary, and a bad policy.” Yet supporters of this provision continue to push the bill to satisfy the most extreme anti-immigrant and anti-environment factions of the population.
Latino and immigration reform groups recognize this attack as an exploitation of anti- immigration sentiments to further erode the environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans on the northern and southern borders. Native American Tribes view the bill as a direct and profound threat to tribal sovereignty, including protection of sacred places and cultural artifacts. Ranchers, business owners, hunters and conservation groups don’t want the bill, and environmentalists see the bill as an overwhelming threat to air, water, and wildlife.
We must respect the liberty of Americans to access our land and protect their right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and to preserve our special places and wildlife for future generations. This bill represents none of those values. For those reasons, we ask that you support the Grijalva amendment to strike “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and oppose final passage of the bill.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Group-OppositionLetter-HR1505.pdf

Dear Representative,
The House is poised to consider the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act”, which includes the title, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to that provision and to the entire bill. “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and its backers are pushing a new over-reaching and extreme effort to create a 100 mile zone on the Mexican and Canadian borders that would sacrifice the rights of Americans to use their land and flout the environmental laws that protect it, all to advance an anti-immigrant, anti-privacy and anti regulatory agenda.
Proponents of the bill are taking the extraordinary step of handing over a 100 mile “operational control zone,” home to millions of Americans, to the federal government, saying that dozens of environmental, safety and religious freedom laws no longer apply. And it would do nothing to advance a comprehensive solution to America’s immigration challenges while authorizing new surveillance of ordinary Americans.
"Security and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We need both,” said Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) about the bill. “Having served as an agent and Sector Chief of the U.S. Border Protection for 26 1/2 years prior to coming to Congress, I understand the challenges and realities of securing the border. We have a responsibility to make sure security policies encourage cooperation and dialogue and should hold the line against politically motivated efforts to weaken environmental protections under the guise of enhancing security."
Echoing that sentiment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an official statement opposing ”The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said, “It is unnecessary, and a bad policy.” Yet supporters of this provision continue to push the bill to satisfy the most extreme anti-immigrant and anti-environment factions of the population.
Latino and immigration reform groups recognize this attack as an exploitation of anti- immigration sentiments to further erode the environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans on the northern and southern borders. Native American Tribes view the bill as a direct and profound threat to tribal sovereignty, including protection of sacred places and cultural artifacts. Ranchers, business owners, hunters and conservation groups don’t want the bill, and environmentalists see the bill as an overwhelming threat to air, water, and wildlife.
We must respect the liberty of Americans to access our land and protect their right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and to preserve our special places and wildlife for future generations. This bill represents none of those values. For those reasons, we ask that you support the Grijalva amendment to strike “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and oppose final passage of the bill.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Group-OppositionLetter-HR1505.pdf

Dear Representative,
The House is poised to consider the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act”, which includes the title, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to that provision and to the entire bill. “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and its backers are pushing a new over-reaching and extreme effort to create a 100 mile zone on the Mexican and Canadian borders that would sacrifice the rights of Americans to use their land and flout the environmental laws that protect it, all to advance an anti-immigrant, anti-privacy and anti regulatory agenda.
Proponents of the bill are taking the extraordinary step of handing over a 100 mile “operational control zone,” home to millions of Americans, to the federal government, saying that dozens of environmental, safety and religious freedom laws no longer apply. And it would do nothing to advance a comprehensive solution to America’s immigration challenges while authorizing new surveillance of ordinary Americans.
"Security and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We need both,” said Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) about the bill. “Having served as an agent and Sector Chief of the U.S. Border Protection for 26 1/2 years prior to coming to Congress, I understand the challenges and realities of securing the border. We have a responsibility to make sure security policies encourage cooperation and dialogue and should hold the line against politically motivated efforts to weaken environmental protections under the guise of enhancing security."
Echoing that sentiment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an official statement opposing ”The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said, “It is unnecessary, and a bad policy.” Yet supporters of this provision continue to push the bill to satisfy the most extreme anti-immigrant and anti-environment factions of the population.
Latino and immigration reform groups recognize this attack as an exploitation of anti- immigration sentiments to further erode the environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans on the northern and southern borders. Native American Tribes view the bill as a direct and profound threat to tribal sovereignty, including protection of sacred places and cultural artifacts. Ranchers, business owners, hunters and conservation groups don’t want the bill, and environmentalists see the bill as an overwhelming threat to air, water, and wildlife.
We must respect the liberty of Americans to access our land and protect their right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and to preserve our special places and wildlife for future generations. This bill represents none of those values. For those reasons, we ask that you support the Grijalva amendment to strike “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and oppose final passage of the bill.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Group-OppositionLetter-HR1505.pdf

Dear Representative,
The House is poised to consider the “Conservation and Economic Growth Act”, which includes the title, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to that provision and to the entire bill. “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and its backers are pushing a new over-reaching and extreme effort to create a 100 mile zone on the Mexican and Canadian borders that would sacrifice the rights of Americans to use their land and flout the environmental laws that protect it, all to advance an anti-immigrant, anti-privacy and anti regulatory agenda.
Proponents of the bill are taking the extraordinary step of handing over a 100 mile “operational control zone,” home to millions of Americans, to the federal government, saying that dozens of environmental, safety and religious freedom laws no longer apply. And it would do nothing to advance a comprehensive solution to America’s immigration challenges while authorizing new surveillance of ordinary Americans.
"Security and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We need both,” said Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) about the bill. “Having served as an agent and Sector Chief of the U.S. Border Protection for 26 1/2 years prior to coming to Congress, I understand the challenges and realities of securing the border. We have a responsibility to make sure security policies encourage cooperation and dialogue and should hold the line against politically motivated efforts to weaken environmental protections under the guise of enhancing security."
Echoing that sentiment, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an official statement opposing ”The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said, “It is unnecessary, and a bad policy.” Yet supporters of this provision continue to push the bill to satisfy the most extreme anti-immigrant and anti-environment factions of the population.
Latino and immigration reform groups recognize this attack as an exploitation of anti- immigration sentiments to further erode the environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans on the northern and southern borders. Native American Tribes view the bill as a direct and profound threat to tribal sovereignty, including protection of sacred places and cultural artifacts. Ranchers, business owners, hunters and conservation groups don’t want the bill, and environmentalists see the bill as an overwhelming threat to air, water, and wildlife.
We must respect the liberty of Americans to access our land and protect their right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and to preserve our special places and wildlife for future generations. This bill represents none of those values. For those reasons, we ask that you support the Grijalva amendment to strike “The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act” and oppose final passage of the bill.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Group-OppositionLetter-HR1505.pdf